Ram Parvesh @ Kabari v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. With reference to the testimony of Geeta PW-1, Ajay PW-2 (not to be mistaken with Ajay ‘Deceased’) and Vishwa Nath PW-4 the learned trial Judge has returned a 2010:DHC:1095-DB finding that the ocular evidence of the said witnesses establishes that on 14.11.2001 at around 9:15 PM the appellant shot Ajay on the staircase of house No.5508, Gali No.5, New Chandrawal, Delhi.

2. With reference to the report Ex.PW-26/A, proved by Sh.K.C.Varshney PW-26 a ballistic expert, a bullet Ex.EB-1 which was recovered from the body of the deceased during post-mortem by Dr. C.B.Dabas PW-9, being opined to be fired from the country-made pistol recovered from the person of the appellant when he was apprehended; the linkage being with respect to the identity of the striation marks on the said bullet on comparison with a test fired bullet the learned trial Judge has found additional incriminating evidence.

3. Thus, the appellant has been convicted on the basis of ocular evidence as also the fact that the weapon of offence was recovered from him when he was apprehended.

4. That a bullet was recovered from the chest of the deceased i.e. Ajay has been deposed to by Dr.C.B.Dabas PW-9, who conducted the post-mortem on 15.11.2001 and noted abrasions on the body of the deceased as also one fire arm entry wound in the chest region. Skin around the entry point of the wound was tattooed and scortched. Internal examination revealed the bullet travelling upwards and ending in the chest near the upper border of scapula. The bullet in question was recovered from said place inside the chest cavity.

5. The purity of the seizure and the seals being intacted have been proved through the testimony of the police constables who handled the bullet. The report Ex.PW-26/A clearly shows that the seals remained intact till the bullet was delivered for forensic evaluation along with the country-made pistol recovered from the person of the appellant when he was apprehended by Ct.Manbir Singh and Ct.Ranbir Singh and formally arrested by SI Yashpal Singh PW-14.

6. We have gone through the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4. None has seen the actual shooting but PW-1 and PW-2 saw the appellant at the staircase of their house and simultaneously saw Ajay lying on the staircase. PW-4 saw the appellant run away. All saw the pistol (Desi Katta) in the hand of the appellant.

7. We note that motive for the crime has not surfaced.

8. The fact that the appellant was seen at the staircase of the house of the deceased and ran away at the point of time when the deceased was shot, itself establishes that the appellant was the offender. That he was seen by the witnesses having a Desi Katta in his hand further inculpates the appellant. There is positive proof that the said Desi Katta was the weapon of offence for the reason when the appellant was apprehended, he was carrying with him the Desi Katta. The bullet recovered from the chest of the deceased has been proved to have been fired from the Desi Katta in question.

9. We are not noting certain blemishes pointed out in the testimony of the three witnesses of the prosecution for the reason they are minor and are natural occurrences when an eye-witness deposes. That PW-1 and PW-4 are related to each other and the deceased and PW-2 is a friend of PW-4 does not mean that they are interested witnesses for the reason it has not been brought out that the three witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant.

10. It also assumes importance to note that the FIR has been registered on the statement Ex.PW-4/A made by Vishwa Nath PW-4 to the Investigating Officer who reached the hospital soon after the incident and in the said statement Vishwa Nath has named the appellant.

11. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.

12. Since the appellant is in jail, a copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for being delivered to the appellant. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT)